Betrayed!?

The title of Cindy Sheehan’s statement on the vote is: “Betrayed! How the Democratic Congress betrayed American voters, the troops in Iraq and extended the occupation for at least another 18 months.” Cindy is a true American hero, by the way.

But did the Democrats really betray anyone? Did this powerful US political party behave in a way that runs counter to its historical role? Did they break any promises or fail to live up to the limited expectations that the American people have for their political parties?

I think not. As Eugene V Debs explained while running for US president as head of the Socialist Party in 1912 (yes m'am, this was written nearly 100 years ago!):

There are but two parties and but one issue. There is no longer even the pretense of difference between the so-called Republican and Democratic parties. They are substantially one in what they stand for.

They are opposed to each other on no question of principle but purely in a contest for the spoils of office.

To the workers of the country these two parties in name are one [party] in fact. They, or rather it, stands for capitalism, for the private ownership of the means of subsistence, for the exploitation of the workers, and for wage-slavery.1

The peace-loving Left cannot be blamed for hoping that the liberal Democratic party would make the war end. Any change from the blind leadership of George W Bush and his Republican party is welcome. But despite the rhetoric of specific and very well intentioned Democratic congresswomen and men, the party itself made no promises about ending the war.

In fact, the Democratic party has never been and never will be an anti-war party. The class interest of the US demands that the foreign policy of the government be imperialist. It goes without saying that imperialism is impossible without war. Since the Democratic party is part and parcel of the ruling mechanism of US capitalism, it is impossible for the party to act against its own perceived interests, that is, the interests of the ruling classes.

Certainly the war will end at some point. This will only happen when the ruling classes decide it is in there interest to do so. There are a variety of ways this can happen. A continued mass movement against the war by the working class, students and others has had a very positive effect and will continue to. Otherwise there would be no concessions from even the Democrats.

Supporting our troops means bringing them home. Stability will not be brought to Iraq by United States or any other imperialist adventurers. The opposite is the case. Our military has yet again been turned into a mercenary army in the service of a small cadre of extremely powerful capitalists. It saddens me to think that, even after the end of the war, troops will stay in Iraq in some form on a permanent basis to consolidate and protect the oil interests now under the control of these capitalists.

See also: Why the anti-war democrats folded, Socialist Worker, 30-Mar-2007

China Vows 100 Years of Socialism

China's Communist president made an announcement regarding the political liberalization of the country, which was much maligned in the capitalist press. I am very much in favor of much more autonomy for labor unions and political activists in China. An effective and democratic system of workers councils that have rights which supersede the bureaucracy would be very welcome.

Still, it is disingenuous for the capitalist press in the United States or the G8 world to be overly critical of China's one party system. The reality in the U.S. is that we have, in the words of Eugene V Debs one party with two wings - the capitalist party. Debs, the most influential American socialist to date, wrote the following:

As a rule, large capitalists are Republicans and small capitalists are Democrats, but workingmen must remember that they are all capitalists, and that the many small ones, like the fewer large ones, are all politically supporting their class interests, and this is always and everywhere the capitalist class.

Whether the means of production—that is to say, the land, mines, factories, machinery, etc.—are owned by a few large Republican capitalists, who organize a trust, or whether they be owned by a lot of small Democratic capitalists, who are opposed to the trust, is all the same to the working class. Let the capitalists, large and small, fight this out among themselves.(Debs, 1900)1

Today Xie Tao had the following to say:

"We are still far away from advancing out of the primary stages of socialism," he said. "We must stick with the basic development guideline of that stage for 100 years."

Still, he said that "the socialism system is not contradictory to democracy," adding: "A highly developed democracy and a complete legal system are inherent requirements of the socialist system and an important benchmark of a mature socialist system."2

China is very cautious about the effects perestroika and glasnost had on Russia. I find it encouraging that a country the size of China will continue to try to build socialism, acknowledging that the context of their doing so is highly flawed.